Barack Obama

[coesillian 0]

Thank you checkymcfold for your input, I was getting getting exhausted and giving up hope. Now why don't we bring up the creationist vs Darwinian theory debate... I shouldn't of gone their I know.Now to try to spark back up the Obama debate, would it be wise for the democrates to try to put a black man in power now that they desperatly need a win. My understanding is that the republicans have a huge majority in Congress so they can do whatever pleases them, like the patriot act. I think there needs to be a solid opposition to maintain a sane democracy, so the US needs a democratics win in the upcomming elections.Now Bushes popularity is so low that ppl might switch to the Democrates, so then why not break the barrier and put the first black president in power.I (would) vote Nader

[Balloon guy 158]

costs too much up front, you mean. the upkeep on a power windmill is virtually nil when compared with any fossil fuel plant.Nah, life span Vs upfront cost makes windmills a government subsidy viable option only. We got thousands here in Palm Springs, when they cut the tax break, they stopped putting them up. I like the idea, but they aren't really all that good.yes, but we're still going to run out of coal eventually, and none of those "clean coal" plants are anywhere close to a solar or wind power station in terms of pollution output. Compared to wind, nothing is cleaner, but coal isn't the black smoke belching plants of yesterday. I haven't read up on this in a while and truth is, I can agree to disagree, I'm pretty sure though that coal supplis would take care of the Us for quite some time.there aren't that many coal plants around these days, comparatively speaking. i doubt that figure on its face, but even if you backed it up there's no way that one volcano would compare to even a 1-2 year output of all greenhouse gases by humanity. hell, we're producing more greenhouse gases every year in the present by a factor of nearly 10 as compared with pre-1970s levels. I'll google this tomorrow.i have one question for people who think global warming is a farce:given that you'd have to be retarded not to think that it's at THE VERY LEAST POSSIBLE that we're going to toast the earth to death, why are you willing to risk not trying to change the way you, personally, or we, collectively, make decisions that affect the environment?

And if there isn't any danger, should we pay more for things that work less and don't really work anyway?

[coesillian 0]

And if there isn't any danger, should we pay more for things that work less and don't really work anyway?

What? You can't begin to see that our actions affect the environment.Or is is you don't think affecting the environment matters at all.You must.But you think there is no point on changing our ways for the good of the environment... that we potentionally have nothing to gain?Well we have EVERYTHING to loose by being inactive and ignorant to a clearly depicted situation. I f we don't do something drastic, or anything at all at the least, the consequences in the near future will be devastating.Has anybody thought about telling their grandchildren about Santa Claus in the future, with his elves, working on a boat ...becaue the freaking North pole will have melted before we die.The future is grim indeed

[hblask 1]

i read your magazine. it's not written by scientists. it's not ultra-conservative, either. meh. but the point i was making was that it's not peer-reviewed. i wish you the best of luck trying to find a PEER-REVIEWED article in a REAL SCIENCE JOURNAL that "debunks" global warming. you'll need it.

Science News is a *summary* of peer-reviewed journals. They have no political agenda, except for a slight tilt toward the "more government in science is good" belief that is commonly accepted. So if anything, they would lean more toward policies that bureaucrats like, such as believing in global warming. The writing in Science News regularly wins awards for professionalism. I'll take the summaries of people who immerse themselves in science over the summaries of newspaper journalists, who immerse themselves in celebrity.

look, EVERY LAW IN EXISTENCE tells us what to do and thus "legislates morality." it's general human nature to go along with those laws until they piss us off and then rebel. conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and socialists alike all understand this fact about the nature of government.

*GOOD* laws protect us from force and fraud and allow voluntary consensual transactions between adults. Any law that steps across that line harms society and increases disregard for the law. *BAD* laws interfere with everyday human action that has no malicious or harmful intent. Laws that try to get us to behave better for our own good fall into that category. These laws are dangerous.

if you don't like the comparison with laws about not killing people, then fine, try the seat belt laws.

Seat belt laws are an insult to adults. If you create a country in which the government treats adults like children, you will get a nation of people who think like infants. Seems to be working.

everyone in the world with any sort of government over their head is dealing with something like a "nanny state" to some degree. to say otherwise is horribly naive.

Laws against force and fraud are not "nanny state", they are legal representations of accepted behavior. Laws that try to protect people from their own choices are a different category altogther.

the point here, again, is not that ethanol is for sure going to save the world. indeed, it might not, but to dismiss a form of energy entirely while it's still within its fledgling stages of development is really, really stupid. no invention worked perfectly on the first try. science would be a hell of a lot easier if that ever happened.

Believing in ethanol requires you to deny the laws of physics. I thought only politicians could be that naive.

[hblask 1]

What? You can't begin to see that our actions affect the environment.Or is is you don't think affecting the environment matters at all.You must.But you think there is no point on changing our ways for the good of the environment... that we potentionally have nothing to gain?Well we have EVERYTHING to loose by being inactive and ignorant to a clearly depicted situation. I f we don't do something drastic, or anything at all at the least, the consequences in the near future will be devastating.Has anybody thought about telling their grandchildren about Santa Claus in the future, with his elves, working on a boat ...becaue the freaking North pole will have melted before we die.The future is grim indeed

Letting bureaucrats decide which technology to invest in is like letting the janitor at the hospital do brain surgery. Politicians and central planners have been historically terrible -- not just bad, but horrendous -- at deciding how the economy should behave, on both the large and the small scale. Are you seriously going to deny that? After all the centuries of data we have, nobody can possibly believe that politicians are good at choosing between economic options. But you discuss a realm that is a valid aspect for government intervention -- secondary effects of otherwise harmless behavior. First, it is important to get the science correct, because bureaucracies tend to be self-inflating. If a crisis can be manufactured from shady evidence, it will balloon into a worldwide crisis in no time in the hands of bureaucrats. I'm not sure of the solution to that problem. I think the first thing would be to get gov't out of the business of science.But let's say that a secondary effect is well-documented and real, such as the air in the LA basin in the 70s. How do we deal with that? One solution is the top-down model, in which oh-so-wise bureaucrats decide on a one-size-fits-all solution, and run with it. Historically, this has been shown to harm the economy and provide only moderate benefits. Again, we have centuries of history on this, so it's not really debateable.A better solution is a bottom up solution. Under this solution, individuals are not forced to obey rules that make no economic sense for them. Instead, people are charged the cost of their harm. In the case of automobiles, it may be with a gas tax to pay for pollution cleanup measures. Or cars can be taxed based on their MPG until the air is "clean enough". In this way, each person gets to decide how much pollution remedies they want to pay for. You want a Ferrari that gets 1MPG? Under a centrally-planned solution, the bureaucrats just say no, harming the economy and society. Under a market solution, the would-be Ferrari owner just pays for their pollution. The "pollution tax" can be adjusted as history reveals how it is working.But remember: in the end, pollution is just a poor choice of asset use. Free markets have incentives to not pollute over the long run. Once again, we have ample historical data to suport this, as anyone who has walked through communist/totalitarian countries can attest.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I don't really remember when I grew up enough to realize the notion that I'm about to write out, but it may have been recently.There doesn't have to be a "better." Science/Social Science is too easily spun to let it prove a "better" when it comes to economic choices, healthcare systems, environmental policies. We have some differences with Quebec, Canada, etc. It works well for us. It might now work as well for Canada. I think we can see from the past riots of college students in France that a capitalist free-market wouldn't work there...students were actually rioting that their jobs wouldn't be guarunteed untouchable by companies once they got them...not realizing that their current unemployment had a lot to do with that policy. Just a difference of life-view. We get our drive to be "better" from the Cold War...most others get it from their nationalism driven from relative homogenity in their respective nations. It is what it is.

[El Guapo 8]

from an article about about an american who can't get laid in amsterdam because he's american http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30993

Did you actually quote the Onion? That is some hard hitting news journalism there.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Here's a good article on why lefty stuff doesn't win in America.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

[CHOP_CHOP_MASTER 0]

it seems to me that alot of you out there have an opinion on his policy's and where he stands. the thing that keeps coming up the most is his race. let it go!!! as far as i can tell, very few, if any of you are from the great state of Illinois who are the people whoo have put this man in office, as i am. so there fore, until he announces that hes running for priesident wait till then to beging trying to dig out the skeletons from his closet.this man has done some pretty damn good things not only for the country, but for our great state of Illinois as well. if you all could find one person in government from your state who can even come close to this man, and the things he has done, you should be a die hard supporter as well. it really dosen't matter to me if he has a D or an R by his name. i vote based on policy and not on their political affiliatiions.i'm sure this is going to piss alot of you off..............

[coesillian 0]

Did you actually quote the Onion? That is some hard hitting news journalism there.

Come on now, you liked that book cover though eh!u must of missed that times article however...Check this one out for a chuckle http://www.favreau.info/misc/canadavsusa.php

Letting bureaucrats decide which technology to invest in is like letting the janitor at the hospital do brain surgery. Politicians and central planners have been historically terrible -- not just bad, but horrendous -- at deciding how the economy should behave, on both the large and the small scale. Are you seriously going to deny that? After all the centuries of data we have, nobody can possibly believe that politicians are good at choosing between economic options. But you discuss a realm that is a valid aspect for government intervention -- secondary effects of otherwise harmless behavior. First, it is important to get the science correct, because bureaucracies tend to be self-inflating. If a crisis can be manufactured from shady evidence, it will balloon into a worldwide crisis in no time in the hands of bureaucrats. I'm not sure of the solution to that problem. I think the first thing would be to get gov't out of the business of science.But let's say that a secondary effect is well-documented and real, such as the air in the LA basin in the 70s. How do we deal with that? One solution is the top-down model, in which oh-so-wise bureaucrats decide on a one-size-fits-all solution, and run with it. Historically, this has been shown to harm the economy and provide only moderate benefits. Again, we have centuries of history on this, so it's not really debateable.A better solution is a bottom up solution. Under this solution, individuals are not forced to obey rules that make no economic sense for them. Instead, people are charged the cost of their harm. In the case of automobiles, it may be with a gas tax to pay for pollution cleanup measures. Or cars can be taxed based on their MPG until the air is "clean enough". In this way, each person gets to decide how much pollution remedies they want to pay for. You want a Ferrari that gets 1MPG? Under a centrally-planned solution, the bureaucrats just say no, harming the economy and society. Under a market solution, the would-be Ferrari owner just pays for their pollution. The "pollution tax" can be adjusted as history reveals how it is working.But remember: in the end, pollution is just a poor choice of asset use. Free markets have incentives to not pollute over the long run. Once again, we have ample historical data to suport this, as anyone who has walked through communist/totalitarian countries can attest.

Well said, a little out of my league but well put sir.

[hblask 1]

Here's a good article on why lefty stuff doesn't win in America.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

Considering that 30% of the people don't know that the government has grown at record rates since Bush was in office, I think it's sort of funny that their opinions are given headlines. People who don't know what the government is doing aren't exactly the best people to ask about whether the government is too powerful.

[PairTheBoard 0]

Here's a good article on Barack Obama. I think he is just what the Democratic Party needs. Also, I'm pretty sure he's against BumFights too.PairTheBoard

[logic411 0]

This entire article is moot, as we all know Hillary Clinton will be the next democratic nominee. First the sex barrier, then the race barrier. Baby steps to a female president, baby steps to a black president.

[socalpoker_j 1]

This entire article is moot, as we all know Hillary Clinton will be the next democratic nominee. First the sex barrier, then the race barrier. Baby steps to a female president, baby steps to a black president.

Meh.. she still couldn't/wouldn't beat McCain according to: Presidential Elections 08'2. John McCain can beat anyone the Democrats put up."Our sense right now is that McCain would beat any Democrat including Hillary Clinton, and Clinton would beat any Republican except for McCain." Thus spake political guru Mark Halperin of ABC News and John Harris of the Washington Post in their book, The Way to Win. Obama upsets that equation because of his crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Like John McCain, the candidate he would be most likely to face in 2008 if he won the Democratic nomination, Obama attracts support more through his style, personality, and biography than by his specific positions. Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks, a long-standing McCain fan, nearly announced his defection to Obama in an admiring column($). As for McCain himself, he would evidently prefer to run against Clinton than Obama.

[herokid7 0]

My sister made an interesting comment when I asked her about Obama (she's more into politics than I am). She said the only reason people really like his amazing speaking ability and the charisma he has to captivate an audience. She then added, "Those are the same things that people liked about Hitler."

[PairTheBoard 0]

Meh.. she still couldn't/wouldn't beat McCain according to: Presidential Elections 08'2. John McCain can beat anyone the Democrats put up."Our sense right now is that McCain would beat any Democrat including Hillary Clinton, and Clinton would beat any Republican except for McCain." Thus spake political guru Mark Halperin of ABC News and John Harris of the Washington Post in their book, The Way to Win. Obama upsets that equation because of his crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Like John McCain, the candidate he would be most likely to face in 2008 if he won the Democratic nomination, Obama attracts support more through his style, personality, and biography than by his specific positions. Last week, New York Times columnist David Brooks, a long-standing McCain fan, nearly announced his defection to Obama in an admiring column($). As for McCain himself, he would evidently prefer to run against Clinton than Obama.

The last I heard, McCain is in favor of sending another 200,000 or so troops into Iraq. I don't think that position will play with the majority of Americans today. It looks like McCain wants a second chance to really win the Vietnam War. If he doesn't change that position I don't see how he can be elected.PairTheBoard

[DonkSlayer 1]

My sister made an interesting comment when I asked her about Obama (she's more into politics than I am). She said the only reason people really like his amazing speaking ability and the charisma he has to captivate an audience. She then added, "Those are the same things that people liked about Hitler."

Did your sister say the sky was blue ever? Hilter was known to believe that too

[herokid7 0]

Did your sister say the sky was blue ever? Hilter was known to believe that too

I think her point was that Hitler could have told the people that the sky was green and that a lot of people would have believed him just because he was a such a good leader and charismatic speaker. The same is true with Obama. I personally think that he could be the Anti-Christ. But, that's just me.

[timwakefield 68]

I think her point was that Hitler could have told the people that the sky was green and that a lot of people would have believed him just because he was a such a good leader and charismatic speaker. The same is true with Obama. I personally think that he could be the Anti-Christ. But, that's just me.

Both this and your last post are the dumbest, most useless posts I've EVER read. Honestly, they make you sound like a complete imbecile. You are comparing Obama to MOTHER****ING HITLER because they are both good at public speaking. Yeah, that makes sense. You know who you remind me of? Jeffrey Dahmer. Know why? You both like apples. Please realize what an idiot you are and STFU.

[herokid7 0]

Both this and your last post are the dumbest, most useless posts I've EVER read. Honestly, they make you sound like a complete imbecile. You are comparing Obama to MOTHER****ING HITLER because they are both good at public speaking. Yeah, that makes sense. You know who you remind me of? Jeffrey Dahmer. Know why? You both like apples. Please realize what an idiot you are and STFU.

I never compared Obama to Hitler. I was quoting my sister. And as for the comparison to both Obama and Hitler's skills, there's no denying them. They are both great speakers with great charisma. I doubt Obama is evil and the fact that you made such a big deal about it shows alot about your intelligence level, or lack thereof. I care very little about politics. I just found that comment by sister interesting.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I just found that comment by sister interesting.

Why? She left out that they both have black hair. That's the most interesting part.

Believing in ethanol requires you to deny the laws of physics.

I'm jumping in a little late, but care to explain?

[KDawgCometh 2]

For anyone who is interested in how any politican has voted or what they stand for, be sure to go to Vote Smart. If you can't find info on the site itself, they will generally provide links to other sites to where you can find info. When looking at any incumbant, you can have easy acess to their entire voting record. The one thing though is that we aren't able to find out what riders may be on bills that a legislator voted either for or against. There may be ways to find that info, but it would probably take a lot of digging. Either way, its a great site and I've used it since 2002 to help me in my choices in who I vote for

[KDawgCometh 2]

My sister made an interesting comment when I asked her about Obama (she's more into politics than I am). She said the only reason people really like his amazing speaking ability and the charisma he has to captivate an audience. She then added, "Those are the same things that people liked about Hitler."

they're also the same reason people like clinton and winston churchill, does that mean that both clinton and churchill are like hitler, please. That is just a fact with modern politics across the board and has been part of politics for a very long time. In ancient greece young aristocratic boys would be trained in the art of rhetoric and the same thing when Rome was a republic

[Loismustdie 0]

My Father graduated UMass Boston last spring. He retired from the MBTA last year and he is now teaching high school History as a retirement job. Obama spoke at the ceremony and I was in the front row for it (we got great seats because my grandmother is handicapped). When I tell you that this guy can captivate an audience I'm making a huge understatement. He just radiates confidence and leadership ability up there... totally blew me away. I need to do more research on him to find out what he truly stands for but after hearing his address to the my Dad's graduating class I was extremely impressed. I remember saying to my mom that he should run for president in the car on the way home.

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world that knows that politcians don't write for themselves. They just deliver words, most of which inevitably means squat when crunch time comes, on both sides of the political arena.

[herokid7 0]

they're also the same reason people like clinton and winston churchill, does that mean that both clinton and churchill are like hitler, please. That is just a fact with modern politics across the board and has been part of politics for a very long time. In ancient greece young aristocratic boys would be trained in the art of rhetoric and the same thing when Rome was a republic

The point that everybody's missing is that just because of the good speaking skills, charisma, etc. does not make Obama like Hitler. No one ever said that, the point I think my sister was trying to make is that everybody likes Obama for those skills, and just because he's talented in those areas doesn't really matter. Hitler had those skills too, and he was evil. Obama has those skills and he might be evil, he might be the ultimate pillar of truth, justice, and the American Way. But, just because he has those skills does not give anyone the right to like him. Those skills are irrelevant.